1954 Cadillac 62 vs. 1996 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 1996 Ford Thunderbird is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1954 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1954 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,423 cc (8 cylinders), 1954 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1954 Cadillac 62 (267 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 129 more horse power than 1996 Ford Thunderbird. (138 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1954 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1996 Ford Thunderbird. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 380 kg more than 1996 Ford Thunderbird. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 1954 Cadillac 62 | 1996 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 1954 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5423 cc | 3791 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 267 HP | 138 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2000 kg | 1620 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5510 mm | 5090 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3290 mm | 2880 mm |
